Article

Efficient coding of natural sounds

  • Nature Neuroscience volume 5, pages 356363 (2002)
  • doi:10.1038/nn831
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published:

Subjects

Abstract

The auditory system encodes sound by decomposing the amplitude signal arriving at the ear into multiple frequency bands whose center frequencies and bandwidths are approximately exponential functions of the distance from the stapes. This organization is thought to result from the adaptation of cochlear mechanisms to the animal's auditory environment. Here we report that several basic auditory nerve fiber tuning properties can be accounted for by adapting a population of filter shapes to encode natural sounds efficiently. The form of the code depends on sound class, resembling a Fourier transformation when optimized for animal vocalizations and a wavelet transformation when optimized for non-biological environmental sounds. Only for the combined set does the optimal code follow scaling characteristics of physiological data. These results suggest that auditory nerve fibers encode a broad set of natural sounds in a manner consistent with information theoretic principles.

  • Subscribe to Nature Neuroscience for full access:

    $59

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    Possible principles underlying the transformation of sensory messages. in Sensory Communication (ed. Rosenbluth, W. A.) 217–234 (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1961).

  2. 2.

    , , & Discharge Patterns of Single Fibers in the Cat's Auditory Nerve (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965).

  3. 3.

    Frequency selectivity at high signal levels of single units in cochlear nerve and nucleus. in Psychophysics and Physiology of Hearing (eds. Evans, E. F. & Wilson, J. P.) 185–192 (Academic, New York, 1977).

  4. 4.

    & On cochlear encoding: potentialities and limitations of the reverse-correlation technique. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 63, 115–135 (1978).

  5. 5.

    & Temporal coding of resonances by low-frequency auditory nerve fibers: single-fiber responses and a population model. J. Neurophys. 60, 1653–1677 (1988).

  6. 6.

    Relations between the satistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. J. Optical Soc. Am. A 12, 2379–2394 (1987).

  7. 7.

    What is the goal of sensory coding? Neural Comp. 6, 559–601 (1994).

  8. 8.

    Perceptual neural organization—some approaches based on network models and information-theory. Annu. Rev. Neuro. 13, 257–281 (1990).

  9. 9.

    Could information-theory provide an ecological theory of sensory processing. Network Comp. Neural Sys. 3, 213–251 (1992).

  10. 10.

    , & Naturalistic stimuli increase the rate and efficiency of information transmission by primary auditory afferents. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 262, 259–265 (1995).

  11. 11.

    & Emergence of simple-cell receptive-field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature 381, 607–609 (1996).

  12. 12.

    & The 'independent components' of natural scenes are edge filters. Vision Res. 37, 3327–3338 (1997).

  13. 13.

    & Independent component analysis of natural images sequences yield spatiotemporal filters similar to simple cells in primary visual cortex. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 265, 2315–2320 (1998).

  14. 14.

    & A probabilistic framework for the adaptation and comparison of image codes. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 1587–1601 (1999).

  15. 15.

    Independent component analysis, a new concept? Signal Process. 36, 287–314 (1994).

  16. 16.

    & An information maximization approach to blind separation and blind deconvolution. Neural Comp. 7, 1129–1159 (1995).

  17. 17.

    Matching coding to scenes to enhance coding efficiency. in Physical and Biological Processing of Images (eds. Braddick, O. J. & Sleigh, A. C.) 42–72 (Springer, Berlin, 1983).

  18. 18.

    & Learning the higher-order structure of a natural sound. Netw. Comput. Neural Syst. 7, 261–267 (1996).

  19. 19.

    & A time-domain, level-dependent auditory filter: the gammachirp. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 412–419 (1997).

  20. 20.

    & Principal-component analysis for low redundancy encoding of speech spectra. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 69, 832–845 (1981).

  21. 21.

    A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing 2nd edn. (Academic, London, 1999).

  22. 22.

    & Learning overcomplete representations. Neural Comput. 12, 337–365 (2000).

  23. 23.

    (ed.) Frequency Selectivity in Hearing (Academic, London, 1986).

  24. 24.

    Cochlear nerve and cochlear nucleus. in Handbook of Sensory Physiology Vol. 5/2 (eds. Keidel, W. D. & Neff, W. D.) 1–108 (Springer, Berlin, 1975).

  25. 25.

    & Characteristics of tone-pip response patterns in relationship to spontaneous rate in cat auditory nerve fibers. Hearing Res. 18, 159–168 (1985).

  26. 26.

    & 1/f noise in music and speech. Nature 258, 317–318 (1975).

  27. 27.

    & Low-order temporal statistics of natural sounds. in Advances in Neural and Information Processing Systems Vol. 9 (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1997).

  28. 28.

    & A design framework for low power analog filter banks. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I 42, 966–971 (1995).

  29. 29.

    & Coding time-varying signals using sparse, shift-invariant representations. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems Vol. 11, 730–736 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999).

  30. 30.

    , & Adaptive rescaling maximizes information transmission. Neuron 26, 695–702 (2000).

  31. 31.

    & Natural signal statistics and sensory gain control. Nat. Neurosci. 4, 819–825 (2001).

  32. 32.

    & A context-senstive generalization of ICA. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural Information Processing 151–157 (Springer, Singapore, 1996).

  33. 33.

    Infomax and maximum likelihood for blind source separation. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 4, 109–111 (1997).

  34. 34.

    , & Sounds of the neotropical rainforest mammals [audio CD] (Library of Natural Sounds, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, 1997).

  35. 35.

    , & A new learning algorithm for blind signal separation. in Advances in Neural and Information Processing Systems Vol. 8, 757–763 (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1996).

  36. 36.

    & Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1973).

  37. 37.

    A theory for multiresolution signal decomposition: the wavelet representation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 11, 674–693 (1989).

  38. 38.

    & Noise removal via Bayesian wavelet coring in Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Image Processing Vol. 1, 379–382 (IEEE Signal Processing Society, Lausanne, 1996).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks C. Olson, B. Olshausen and L. Holt for discussions and feedback on the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department and Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA

    • Michael S. Lewicki

Authors

  1. Search for Michael S. Lewicki in:

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Lewicki.